In feminism, there's a camp that believes men are unchangeable because of a biological flaw. It's a minority view, I think, but it takes sustenance from the evident difficulty of changing male behavior towards women, and the suspicion that men are more warlike (this is one implication of Code Pink, Women in Black and other all-woman peace formations, and a diversion from the main sources of modern warmaking, not to mention a diversion from feminism.)
[...]
info at pulp:
oh, but if they can't be changed, it would be sumpin' wouldn't it? I envision something like The Matrix. Hook 'em all up so we can extract their sperm when we need it. Maybe even keep em subdued, but with erections, like in The World According to Garp. heh. JOKING.
...........................
I'm fascinated by how extremist arguments from ostensibly “progressive” groups (or, more accurately, such arguments from ultra radical sub-groups of progressive movements) all seem to converge, sooner or later, on a single, supremacist point.
That is to say, I've encountered Black Nationalists who've argued – echoing the Ultra RadFem 'critique' of male violence - that White people are unchangeable because of a biological flaw and must, as a group, be worked around or somehow eliminated (I'm sure folk who hold this view would prefer those crank yanking Matrix pods were occupied by stubborn Euros, men and women).
Surely there are other examples of this sort of parallelism (for ex. Ultra RadFems saying 'patriarchy' is the prime mover unmoved of evil – BNats insisting racism and White 'insecurity' are the principal elements of human perfidy).
I'm certain we can travel beyond this brief and hastily constructed Ultra RadFem vs. BNat comparison to find other analogs.
.d.
--------- Dwayne, you're going to hell.
Well yes, perhaps but fortunately I like it hot.